From the NRA brief, the fundamental flaw in logic in the County's position:

Quote:

But the right to carry a firearm only for immediate self-defense is no right at all. The "right" does not materialize until it is too late to exercise. Unless criminals and other who pose the threats that a right to self-defense protects against plan to announce their intent to present a grave and immediate threat and then take a time out to enable the potential victim to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights, a right to immediate self-defense is entirely illusory.

The International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), and the Independence Institute, in support of neither party. Authored by David Kopel.

This is a hard hitting look at open carry, California style (Unloaded Open Carry - UOC) and why it is dangerous to all concerned. Why the court below erred in its conclusion that UOC was adequate and why concealed carry for ordinary citizens is the manner preferred by most police authorities.

While I have yet to read more than a few pages (I'm on lunch break), I have attached it to this post.

OK, this is a lot of reading to comprehend. I've skimmed all the briefs and they are all good. Some better than others. Yet they all attack San Diego County and the court below. Several attack the panel that decided Nordyke.

The SAF amicus brief specifically mentions that they intend to relate the recent Prieto (now on appeal to the 9th) case with Peruta and state that they want orals on the same day (Gura says filings to that effect are due shortly). This is Gura playing hardball.

The Appellees (County) in Peruta v. San Diego have filed their response to the Appellants (Ed Peruta, et al) opening brief in the 9th Circuit. The Bradys along with the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Police Foundation have filed an amicus brief in support of San Diego.

The Bradys are, of course, pounding the table with, "In The Home!"

Both briefs spend some time telling the court how the discretionary laws of CA are quite constitutional, as CA law allows unloaded open carry. They are both silent on how you can not carry openly (unloaded or loaded) anywhere within those GFSZ's! Even under Federal Law, you must have a license/permit to carry (issued by that State) in order to carry within 1000 feet of a school. CA has passed a similar law, so theoretically, you might be charged as violating both laws.

It appears that San Diego has caught on to the fact that this case has a much larger scope/magnitude than just S.D. County alone:

Quote:

This case is an indirect effort to change California‘s statutory limitations on the public carry of loaded firearms by attacking the concealed carry licensing policy of a single county sheriff. Appellants‘ argument is, at its a core, a challenge to Penal Code section 12031 rather than this Sheriff‘s administration of concealed carry licensing.

Well, Doh!

The County then spends a few pages painting a spectacular picture of their licensing scheme and how fair it is.

They then spend a few more pages explaining how the scope of the right does not include anything outside of the home...

And even if it did, CA has provided for alternative methods of carry that are completely fair and do not substantially burden (Thank you, Nordyke panel) the right.

Moving on.

They contend that the Sheriffs' practices meet any standard of scrutiny. They then say that (are you sitting comfortably?):

Quote:

Intermediate Scrutiny is Applied When Firearm Possession in The Home is Involved.

Here is what is interesting about these two briefs: There is no mention of the Ezell decision.

It's almost as if they do not see that they are setting up the 9th Circuit to intentionally split with the 7th Circuit. That is one sure method of gaining cert before the SCOTUS. With both Williams and Masciandaro before the SCOTUS, this is something they really do not want to do - but here they are, doing it anyway.

Peruta's reply brief was due yesterday, Sept. 6th. It must have been posted late at night, as it wasn't there by the time I called it a night.

It's available now, however and I have attached it to this post.

Chuck Michel attacks and destroys everything the County has implied, ignored and generally misconstrued. The brief even goes so far as to wonder how the Nordyke panel could have gotten its decision so wrong, when the weight of Heller and McDonald were against it.

This latest supplemental citation, is the Nordyke decision. Attention should also be given to the amici letter from attorney Allan Mayer, who is requesting to be permitted to supply a "Brandeis" brief.

Attention should also be given to the amici letter from attorney Allan Mayer, who is requesting to be permitted to supply a "Brandeis" brief.

I am paying attention to it. I hope that this is a first rough draft, because I can't see a competent attorney submitting a letter for judicial consideration containing pen-and-ink corrections, misspelling the name of a US Supreme Court Justice, and citing Wikipedia as a source for reliable information.

Color me

__________________Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)

I hope that this is a first rough draft, because I can't see a competent attorney submitting a letter for judicial consideration containing pen-and-ink corrections, misspelling the name of a US Supreme Court Justice, and citing Wikipedia as a source for reliable information.

I'm sure that everybody has wondered about all the carry cases, now at the 9th circuit?

The Peruta attorneys are noticing the court of all the cases that are somewhat related and are suggesting that all but Peruta and Richards be stayed. They are suggesting that a decision in these two cases will make or break the other cases.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.